(no subject)
Mar. 26th, 2006 02:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tvordljBonus money! Sort of anyway. I have a shelf in the kitchen and it ends up being a catch-all so this morning i was chipping through the pile of stuff and putting it away or on other catch-all places and i discovered a cheque! A blue cross insurance refund from a couple of chiropractor payments, dated a couple of weeks ago, that i didn't cash yet! Woo! I was getting a bit short and was thinking i'd have to go worship at the Money God in the Wall tomorrow and now i can put that cheque in the bank and withdraw from that. It's not a huge amount, just $66 but $60 of it will get me through to payday handily.
I didn't go to the gym yesterday but i did walk over to MicMac Mall instead, about 25 or 30 minutes i think, for the speed i walk. I decided to buy the Capote dvd, which i did, and i said "hey" to my niece where she works and bought a card of three pairs of drop earrings, little clear glass ones, blue, green and brown which will match a few things i wear.
Capote was good. Philip Seymour Hoffman was excellent in the part of Truman Capote balancing his curiosity, growing affection for one of the murderers and his ambition for his literary work.
Last night, i went to see Johnny Depp in The Libertine with my mate Colleen. It was different than i expected. I knew the basic plot. It's about John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a 17th century bawdy poet. He was a man that was morally corrupt, even for that era which was pretty fast and loose as it was, after the restoration of Charles II. He writes obscene and shocking poetry, lampoons people, the king in particular and tries to see how far he can go. The movie opens as he is permitted to return to court after a banishment after one such "go to far" episode. It seems like the King doesn't really mind, personally but only minds and takes action when it makes him look bad to everyone else. One must keep up appearances!
Wilmot is married and seems to have some small affection for his wife but it certainly is more on her part than on his. He swept her off her feet but now lives off her money and his scandalous reputation... and a lot of credit. He becomes enamoured with an ambitious actress, Elizabeth Barry, encouraging her in her acting career and skills. He writes what is supposed to be a play that is the definitive literary work to represent the reign of Charles II but which is pornographic and obscene and even too over the top for the king. Wilmot gets banished again. Because of his sexual history, he has syphillis and this combined with alcohol dooms him to a painful and very early death at the age of 33.
I went into the movie expecting a swashbuckling romp but the movie was not a comedy or an adventure/action. It was darker, more serious. The movie starts out with a shot of Wilmott telling the audience that they will not like him. And you don't. He's not a likeable man. He's selfish and he has no morals. Anything goes. As the movie opens, he's already been banned from court for pissing off the king, which isn't easy to do considering Charles II has pretty loose morals himself but then, he's also the king and he has to keep up appearances. He comes back to court, and proceeds as he always did, risque, bawdy, out for a good time, come what may.
Johnny Depp plays Wilmot and does it brilliantly but the portrayal i was most impressed with is John Malkovitch's Charles II. You usually see Charles portrayed as effete, pompous, very vain and self centered and shallow. No doubt he was some of those things but not to the extent you usually see. This is a man who's father was king and subsequently murdered. He lived in exile for many years until his rightful throne was restored. By the time this movie opens, he's a middle aged man, trying to run a kingdom and hating having to bend to parliament. He's king and he can do what he wants, it isn't a "boys just want to have fun" type character. He's smart, he's sly, he's very aware of his public persona and when Wilmott goes too far, presenting the pornographic play to the public that makes the king look a fool, he doesn't rant and rave and get hysterical. He just puts his foot down and banishes Wilmott and then doesn't give him a second thought for months on end. The makeup job was fantastic too. They had Malkovitch looking very like the portaits you usually see, with the size and shape of the Stuart nose, and they changed the shape of his face and forehead too.
Samantha Morton as Elizabeth Barry was subtle and ambitious and used Wilmott as much as he used her, i thought. He was also a means to an end once she realized how much help he was to her acting and to her career. They do have an affair but it's not really the center of the movie. She even comes across as cold, no weeping and wailing after their affair is over.
I thought the staging of the movie was good too. It portrayed the era a lot more realistically than you usually see. It was muddy and dirty and drab, dark interiors lit by candle. Everyone looked like they needed a good wash. The costumes were fabulous. The language was crude and obscene, even by the actresses but then they were usually little more than prostitutes or considered in the same category anyway. I know that some of you out there have a much better and more detailed grasp of history than i do though i am relatively familiar so if some of my assumptions are off, no worries on correcting me :) I just thought this movie had a more authentic feel to it than most i've seen.
The camera work was not my taste though. It was mostly all hand held, with the focus going fuzzy sometimes as it shifted range. Lots of close ups. You got very much the feel of being a fly on the wall eavesdropping on the goings on. Almost like a 17th century reality show where the cameras are all hidden and this isn't a movie being acted at all. I find i get a bit motion sick. But that's just me. It probably did add to the authentic feel.
Many of the events are based on real happenings though i'm sure embroidered for the movie as they usually are. Wilmott really was a poet and much of his writing was anywhere from risque to downright pornographic even by today's standards. The language in the film reflects that, so if you are easily offended, be warned.
I went in expecting a light, rollocking comedy. I got a dark, decaying poet hell bent on his demise. Live Hard, Die Young. But he didn't leave a good looking corpse. That's what usually happens with men like Wilmott. I don't know if i would recommend the movie mainly because i don't think it's the sort of thing that would appeal to most people. I did like it once i got my head around what it was going to be like. The performances were very good. The cinematography and editing a bit choppy for my taste. No buckles were swashed, some blood was shed, not even a lot of nudity (too many clothes to take off so let's just hitch up the skirts and unbutton the trousers and get on with it).
I didn't go to the gym yesterday but i did walk over to MicMac Mall instead, about 25 or 30 minutes i think, for the speed i walk. I decided to buy the Capote dvd, which i did, and i said "hey" to my niece where she works and bought a card of three pairs of drop earrings, little clear glass ones, blue, green and brown which will match a few things i wear.
Capote was good. Philip Seymour Hoffman was excellent in the part of Truman Capote balancing his curiosity, growing affection for one of the murderers and his ambition for his literary work.
Last night, i went to see Johnny Depp in The Libertine with my mate Colleen. It was different than i expected. I knew the basic plot. It's about John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a 17th century bawdy poet. He was a man that was morally corrupt, even for that era which was pretty fast and loose as it was, after the restoration of Charles II. He writes obscene and shocking poetry, lampoons people, the king in particular and tries to see how far he can go. The movie opens as he is permitted to return to court after a banishment after one such "go to far" episode. It seems like the King doesn't really mind, personally but only minds and takes action when it makes him look bad to everyone else. One must keep up appearances!
Wilmot is married and seems to have some small affection for his wife but it certainly is more on her part than on his. He swept her off her feet but now lives off her money and his scandalous reputation... and a lot of credit. He becomes enamoured with an ambitious actress, Elizabeth Barry, encouraging her in her acting career and skills. He writes what is supposed to be a play that is the definitive literary work to represent the reign of Charles II but which is pornographic and obscene and even too over the top for the king. Wilmot gets banished again. Because of his sexual history, he has syphillis and this combined with alcohol dooms him to a painful and very early death at the age of 33.
I went into the movie expecting a swashbuckling romp but the movie was not a comedy or an adventure/action. It was darker, more serious. The movie starts out with a shot of Wilmott telling the audience that they will not like him. And you don't. He's not a likeable man. He's selfish and he has no morals. Anything goes. As the movie opens, he's already been banned from court for pissing off the king, which isn't easy to do considering Charles II has pretty loose morals himself but then, he's also the king and he has to keep up appearances. He comes back to court, and proceeds as he always did, risque, bawdy, out for a good time, come what may.
Johnny Depp plays Wilmot and does it brilliantly but the portrayal i was most impressed with is John Malkovitch's Charles II. You usually see Charles portrayed as effete, pompous, very vain and self centered and shallow. No doubt he was some of those things but not to the extent you usually see. This is a man who's father was king and subsequently murdered. He lived in exile for many years until his rightful throne was restored. By the time this movie opens, he's a middle aged man, trying to run a kingdom and hating having to bend to parliament. He's king and he can do what he wants, it isn't a "boys just want to have fun" type character. He's smart, he's sly, he's very aware of his public persona and when Wilmott goes too far, presenting the pornographic play to the public that makes the king look a fool, he doesn't rant and rave and get hysterical. He just puts his foot down and banishes Wilmott and then doesn't give him a second thought for months on end. The makeup job was fantastic too. They had Malkovitch looking very like the portaits you usually see, with the size and shape of the Stuart nose, and they changed the shape of his face and forehead too.
Samantha Morton as Elizabeth Barry was subtle and ambitious and used Wilmott as much as he used her, i thought. He was also a means to an end once she realized how much help he was to her acting and to her career. They do have an affair but it's not really the center of the movie. She even comes across as cold, no weeping and wailing after their affair is over.
I thought the staging of the movie was good too. It portrayed the era a lot more realistically than you usually see. It was muddy and dirty and drab, dark interiors lit by candle. Everyone looked like they needed a good wash. The costumes were fabulous. The language was crude and obscene, even by the actresses but then they were usually little more than prostitutes or considered in the same category anyway. I know that some of you out there have a much better and more detailed grasp of history than i do though i am relatively familiar so if some of my assumptions are off, no worries on correcting me :) I just thought this movie had a more authentic feel to it than most i've seen.
The camera work was not my taste though. It was mostly all hand held, with the focus going fuzzy sometimes as it shifted range. Lots of close ups. You got very much the feel of being a fly on the wall eavesdropping on the goings on. Almost like a 17th century reality show where the cameras are all hidden and this isn't a movie being acted at all. I find i get a bit motion sick. But that's just me. It probably did add to the authentic feel.
Many of the events are based on real happenings though i'm sure embroidered for the movie as they usually are. Wilmott really was a poet and much of his writing was anywhere from risque to downright pornographic even by today's standards. The language in the film reflects that, so if you are easily offended, be warned.
I went in expecting a light, rollocking comedy. I got a dark, decaying poet hell bent on his demise. Live Hard, Die Young. But he didn't leave a good looking corpse. That's what usually happens with men like Wilmott. I don't know if i would recommend the movie mainly because i don't think it's the sort of thing that would appeal to most people. I did like it once i got my head around what it was going to be like. The performances were very good. The cinematography and editing a bit choppy for my taste. No buckles were swashed, some blood was shed, not even a lot of nudity (too many clothes to take off so let's just hitch up the skirts and unbutton the trousers and get on with it).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 02:31 pm (UTC)where's all this wind coming from lately.
and diane?forgive me for only now sending birthday greetings..*hug*.
I hope it was a wonderful day...*hug*
{{heyyy, we were watching Dont forget your passport on tv last night..They showed a place called Bath..OoOo, it looks GORgoeus. Ive been trying to get mark to settle on a palce to travel to. No point saving for someplace if you dont pick out where ya wanna GO, for heaven's sake..*L...anyways...I was awfully excited when I saw Bath}}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 05:01 pm (UTC)